Conservative media is good for free speech

I went to college at Ferris State University.  Most of my friends were from Detroit, and were hardcore liberal democrats. When we debated they would use the Detroit Free Press as evidence to support their ideas. They'd say, "See, right there!"  As a conservative, I didn't have this. That's why it was so great when Rush Limbaugh came along.

I grew up in the eighties under Reagan and became aware of the misinformation and lies that the liberal media was putting forth, particularly Reagan economics,, which logically made sense, but also the Soviet Union, Communism, and so forth. They said Reagan's tax cuts were not working, and that all his military spending did was add to the national debt, instead of giving people a reason not to mess with us.

A quote by Rush Limbaugh

You know, I always figured the purpose of building a strong military, a strong nuclear program, and stealth bombers, was so we didn't have to use them. You know, people know we have them so they won't mess with us.

I could never explain that to my friends.  They would just pick up the latest edition of the Free Press and point to their evidence. If I wanted to get evidence I had to go out of my way and go to the library and do some research, which was impossible given that I had all sorts of homework and studying that had to be done. Actually, they didn't need evidence. Sometimes they would just look at each other and laugh when I opposed them. I was backwoods.  I had these outdated, controversial ideas.

When I tried to explain to them that the Iraq War was good, they mocked me. When I tried to explain that Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather were all in the tank for democrats and were trying to make Reagan and Bush look bad, my friends mocked me. "It's the news!" they'd say, laughing. "It's the facts as they happen.  How could you oppose facts?"

Well, I knew it wasn't the facts what I was hearing, but I just learned to keep my mouth shut.  The only vindication I got was that the opposing voices in the media, all their attempts at destroying Reagan and Bush, didn't work, as Reagan won in two landslide elections, and Bush also won in 1988.  So there were obviously many people who were thinking the same as me, only if you watched the media you wouldn't know it.

So I was so thankful when conservative media, beginning with Rush Limbaugh, came along to give me some credibility and not let me feel so isolated anymore.  I do not get most of my ideas from Rush, it's just that he sort of vindicates what I'm thinking as I read the news. Of course now theirs National Review, and even Fox News to some extend, although I think Fox is far from a conservative media outlet.  It does, however, seem to be fair to both sides, actually giving traditional Americans (conservatives) a platform.

Yet there are some who don't like all these voices being heard.  They don't like that the Internet, a.m. radio and books give voices to people with differing opinions on the facts to be heard.  They don't like Rush Limbaugh, and would prefer that he not have a voice.

A good example is yesterday when I read that Mitt Romney was saying that he thought American was a better place before conservative media came along.  He thought America was a better place before Rush Limbaugh came along, because all this did was create a partisan divide where people could just listen to people they agree with all day long, rather than everyone getting all the same facts from the same sources every day.

What makes this so naive is that it sort of feeds into what liberals and democrats have always said about Rush, that he hives people ideas and tells people how to think.  That's not how it is at all.  All he does is make free thinkers like myself feel less isolated in a world surrounded by liberal media.

You see, I didn't think I was getting the facts when I watched Dan Rather.  I didn't agree with the editorials in the Detroit Free Press that my college buddies were quoting from.  Conservative media made me realize that I was not alone in doubting the "facts" doled out by the media and my liberal buddies.

Granted, we did not have many political debates, as we were more interested in studying, doing homework, but mainly in having fun. Still, it's something I think about once in a while.  I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop voices from being heard.  There's nothing better, in my mind, for free speech than a free Internet.  It allows people to get their news from all sorts of media outlets, both left, right, independent, and so forth. It's simply a great thing.

Further Reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Debunking the mind numbed robot

Stop Congress from controlling the Internet

In February, 2015, Congress will vote on whether they should be able to control the Internet.  The reason they want to do it is so they can eventually stop people like Pat Condell from being heard.

Condell is telling people that he does not believe what the media and the government are telling us about Islamic Terrorism.  Because the Internet is free and easily accessible, even people like Condell, with no political or media contacts, can get their opinions heard.

As Glenn Beck said on his Facebook page:

He doesn't have to march, petition, or set himself on fire to bet people to hear him. He turns on his computer, turns on his camera and meekly says how he feels. He is quietly saying that everyone who claims to be in control is not just wrong but a joke. And because of the internet, this one man, formerly a nobody, will have millions around the world saying - "you know what, this makes more sense than anything else I am hearing and reading from the elites. Maybe it isn't just me. The internet: a real and present danger to global power and lies.

There are people in Government who want the Internet to stay as it is, although there are people in the Government who want to control what is being said. They don't want your suspicions that the government and the media is lying to us to be confirmed, so they yearn to shut up voices like Pat Condell.

I am concerned for myself, because I enjoy sharing my opinion for free on the Internet.  As it is, Condell has an opinion similar to my own.  Even if he didn't, he should still have a right to say his piece.  The Internet is the best thing to ever happen to free speech, and the government should not make any laws to take this away.

An initial law may not do this by itself, but, for many, the ultimate goal is to control what information we have access to.

Beck concluded by saying:

Congress votes on regulation next month. Republicans and democrats both are for "regulation to make it more free." Spread the word. Call congress and tell them to leave the only real free space alone. Or I guess we can trust the same people who told you "don't worry, if you like your health care you can keep your healthcare." 

People who champion for laws to perfect the world only create chaos.  They made laws to make the healthcare system better, and it got worse.  They made laws to make the economy better, and they made it worse.  So now they want to make laws to make the Internet better, and we can only envision what that will lead to.